STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. KASHI NATH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Herd learned counsel for the parties. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment dated 18.05.2007 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3802 of 2006 whereby the writ petition of the petitioner-respondent was allowed and order issued by letter no. 1160 dated 05.06.2006 has been quashed by which the petitioner was dismissed from service by the department in a departmental proceeding.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed on Class-II post in Animal Husbandry Department in the year 1972, then this petitioner was promoted to the Class-I post in the year 1981. According to the petitioner since at the time of appointment he worked honestly and there was no allegation against the petitioner but because of certain prejudices which were due to reason that the petitioner was expecting his promotion and at that time Secretary of the Government was interested in other persons, therefore, he tried to promote juniors and therefore the petitioner had to file the writ L.P.A. No. 248 of 2007 petition, reference of which has been given in the impugned order itself, wherein according to the petitioner he obtained stay against the promotion of his juniors. Being annoyed of this action of the petitioner of filing the writ petition and obtaining the interim order when the officers in the Government failed to get the writ petition withdrawn by the petitioner, the petitioner was suspended vide letter dated 1.2.1997 initially and in that proceeding also the petitioner was successful in his writ petition C.W.J.C. No.2316 of 1997 wherein the Patna High Court disposed of the writ petition of the petitioner directing the respondent -State to conclude the enqiry by 31.12.1997 failing which it was directed that the charge-sheet as well as the suspension order shall stand quashed with effect from 1.1.1998. Since the inquiry was not concluded by that date i.e. 31.12.1997, the petitioner 's suspension order and the charge-sheet itself stand quashed. The respondent-State moved the application for extension of time before the High Court and that too was rejected, and therefore, so far as the allegations which were levelled as back as in the year 1997 stands concludely decided by quashing of the charge-sheet itself in the light of the order of the High Court passed C.W.J.C. No.2316 of 1997. In spite of the above, the new charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner containing 27 charges and some of the charges were earlier the ground of the departmental enquiry, but the petitioner was subjected to enquiry and after the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the promotion of juniors wherein the stay order was passed by the High Court. The petitioner then was again served with a yet another supplementary charge-sheet containing 3 articles vide Memo No.1688 dated 25.7.2005. In the initial process, say, the petitioner was not found guilty in the preliminary enquiry except for one charge, but the disciplinary authority disagreed with the view taken by enquiry officer with respect to certain charges except one charge which was found proved against the writ petitioner and gave the second show cause. The petitioner challenged the second show cause notice, but during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was dismissed from the services vide above latter No.1160 dated 5.6.2006. The petitioner then amended the writ petition and challenged the order of dismissal of the petitioner from the service. The writ petition of the petitioner was allowed and dismissal of petitioner from service was set aside, hence this L.P.A. by State.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that initially the 27 charges were levelled against the petitioner and out of the 27 charges, one charge of giving illegal appointment to four persons in Class-4 was proved and because of that illegal appointment, Government suffered loss of above Rupees Seventeen Lakhs, which is the amount of salary paid to these workers. However, it is admitted fact that services for those persons who were given appointment earlier and whose services were regularized by the petitioner were already regularized and kept in service, but the department wants to recover the amount of salary paid to these persons from the petitioner, even when the workmen already worked in the department and they were paid salary on account of their being in service.